Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1887-10-20

is for selling liquor not to be drank on
the premises, and for the purpose Of
this case we must assume that he had a
license to retail. At any rate there is
no charge that he had not. And it is
simply on this charge that he sold liquor
not to be drank on the Premises, for
which he is being tried. And il is that
question which you have to determine.
The law provides for two kinds of
licenses. One for the sale of liquor to
be drank on the premises, and the other
for the sale of any quantity of such liq-
uors not to be drank on the premi -.
What is the meaning of the wol /. prem
isesp
The law speaks of granting license
to keep groceries, saloons or other
places; the law does not contemplate
the giving of license to sell over stated
area of ground.
When license is granted to sell liz
uors in a saloon situated upon certain
lot, rs the license in this case was in
tended to be, the premises means the
saloon or at most the saloon building.
1t does not mean the lot outside the
building. Doubtless a license may be
granted to keep beer garden within
certain limits. In license so specified,
beer, or it may be other Intoxicating liq-
uors could be sold within the limits of the
beer garden. But it is evident that no
license of this kind was intended to be
granted in this case, and drinking of
the whiskey outside of the saloon was a
drinking off the premises. although it
took place behind an ice house on the
lot upon which the saloon stood.
So that if the defendant in this case
sold liquor knowing, or having reason
to believe that it would be taken out of
his house, either the whole or some part
of it, and it was taken out of tho house,
but subsequently was drank on his lot
where the saloon was situated, by the side
fthe ice house, that would not hes drink
ing on the premises. And if the sale was
made with good reason to believe that
the liquor was to be taken out of the
saloon to be drank, the fact that the
liquor was drank on the lot BY the ice
house would not constitute defence.
Did this defendant sell to this man
Anderson bottle of whiskey not to
be drank on the premises?
Anderson does not remember that
anything was said about where he
should drink it. Mr.. Quick testifies that
he told him it must be drank on the prem
Uses, or words to that effect. Itisfor YOU
to consider the weight to be given to the
testimony of these two persons. Wheth-
er the testimony of Mr.. Quick, who
said that it was to be drank on the
premises, is to be taken before that of
the witness Anderson, who does not re-
member that anything was said about
where it was to be drank.
1t is common saying, that actions
speak louder than words, and it is the
duty of the court and juries not only to
give attention to what a man says his
intention was. but also to consider his
action and all the circumstances of the
case. In view of all the circumstances;
in view of the fact that this liquor was
put in bottle; In view of the fact that
a cork was put in the bottle; In view of
the fact that this man went out of the
door with the bottle of liquor, and that
Quick did not make any attempt to call
him back so that the law might not be
violated in view of all that was done
and said, have you reasonable doubt
that this was a sale of liquor not to be
drank upon the premises?
If you have a reasonable doubt of his
guilt in the matter of this sale, you
should aequit him. If you have no
reasonable doubt of his guilt, you should
convict him.